Maritime Rules & their Application according to Judge Wylie
P33 – That M Pigneguy denied he turned towards Classique & Phillip Sweetman didn’t mention it, was sufficient for Judge Wylie to say there was nothing to support Bolton’s evidence that indeed Seaway had turned, even though Barry Young had calculated inaccurately, his minimal 2.4 deg of turning within Photos 1 to 3 – unrealistically refusing to acknowledge the turning of Seaway prior to Photo 1.
M Pigneguy presented no verification of his being on a course of 286 deg – P Sweetman admitted he hadn’t checked the course Seaway was on, he just copied it, for an intended prosecution, from the information given to him by M Pigneguy at the end of the day back in Auckland.
Barry Young’s assertion that Seaway couldn’t be steered straight in calm water because of its compass graduations being wide, didn’t worry Judge Wylie, even though M Pigneguy described Seaway as being very maneuverable & said he was not using the compass anyway but was steering visually towards locations on the Nth shore.
P36 – Seaway’s speed being twice that of Classique’s was incorrectly said to be irrelevant by Judge Wylie who disregarded Bolton’s evidence that according to the rules, it placed upon Seaway an obligation to make its signals earlier & have consideration for a slower vessel’s ability to react – Seaway made no signals until it was 80 mtrs off Classique – taking photos in lieu.
P37 – It was spurious for Judge Wylie to maintain that M Pigneguy’s sounding of his inadequate handheld aerosol horn at such a late time, at an inappropriate distance off, is in any way according to the Maritime rules. Judge Wylie referred to “a vessel in doubt must immediately indicate such doubt” but he doesn’t apply that mandatory requirement to M Pigneguy’s improper use of a non complying device as a violation.
P38 – Judge Wylie is wrong to say it’s irrelevant for M Pigneguy not to supply evidence in support of his course & positions.
P47 & 48 – Judge Wylie wrongfully criticizes Bolton – repeating Judge Davis’s incorrect opinion gained from the misleading information of the prosecution but he shows no understanding of M Pigneguy’s many violations being 100% responsible for the incident – including his use of a relative bearing when not steering straight, creating the risk of collision when none existed, invoking the crossing rule negligently when Rule 22.15 didn’t apply etc.
P52 &53 – Risk of collision Rule 22.15 is quoted by Judge Wylie who repeats what Judge Davis decided after being mislead by the prosecution, that risk of collision existed & Classique was to have taken action to avoid but he disregards entirely how M Pigneguy created the risk & violated the Rule by not keeping his course & speed if he regarded himself as a stand-on vessel – there was existing originally, the courses of both vessels giving a safe passing starboard to starboard with no crossing at all necessary.
P54 – Action by give-way vessel , said to be Classique,
Rule 22.16 is quoted as “action must be early & substantial to keep well clear” Again Judge Wylie repeats the erroneous decision of Judge Davis which perpetuates the story of M pigneguy unrealistically expecting Classique to turn starboard & Barry Young’s nautically imprudent suggestion that Classique can make a bold turn starboard – without revealing it’s toward the shallows of Browns reef & Light proximity. He disregards Bolton’s evidence that it would’ve been more appropriate for Seaway to have kept to its regular course & speed, either passing safely astern of Classique or rounding in the vicinity of Browns Island to follow the course from whence Classique had come.
P55&56 – Action by a stand-on vessel, Rule 22.17 required Seaway, if it was believed to be one, to keep its course & speed. Judge Wylie said “evidence clearly established that’s what M Pigneguy did until he had to avoid collision by putting Seaway’s engines into reverse, initially slowing down & then more or less stopping the vessel. He did not alter course to port & breach Rule 22.17.2b by steering into the path Classique should’ve taken – these actions not relieving Classique of its obligations to have kept out of the way, Rule 22.17.4.”
What Judge Wylie referred to as evidence, was a fanciful tale put to Judge Davis by M Pigneguy & neither Judge had any verification of its authenticity – in fact Bolton’s & B Young’s evidence proved that Seaway did turn towards Classique in violation of Rule 22.17 to keep its course & speed.
Regarding M Pigneguy’s stated use of astern propulsion – he didn’t indicate with the mandatory 3 blasts if he did apply it, neither did it appear to Bolton that it had slowed but went past as fast as a ro/ro ferry would be expected to & it certainly didn’t stop – that Seaway stopped or almost stopped, is a false claim made at the hearing about 7 times by M Pigneguy, entirely misleading to the Court for the purpose of dramatizing a manufactured incident.
P57 – Judge Wylie sums up by rubberstamping Judge Davis’s mistaken decisions made as a result of the misleading evidence given to him by the prosecution. He is wrong to say that Classique was obliged to give way or that Classique caused a close quarters situation to develop – it was entirely created by M Pigneguy’s actions in violation of many Rules & breaches of acceptable seamanship . If there was any danger it was created by M Pigneguy purposely to complain about, without giving any proper indication to Classique of his theoretical concern in advance.
MNZ failed to investigate the claim impartially or sufficiently – there was no full analysis of the photos or Bolton’s evidence & the purported expert sworn to be independent, helpful to the Court, proved to be a hired gun dishonestly acting as an advocate for the case, aiming for a wrongful prosecution in an inappropriate forum.
Maritime Rules & their Application according to Judge Wylie